2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

There is a serious debate to be had about European crime and justice, about how we should tackle cross-border crime, and about where we should work with Europe and where we should operate alone. On many issues we will agree with the Government, and on some we will not. There is clearly disagreement within the Government, and within the Conservative party.

These issues are extremely important, and Parliament needs to hold a serious debate before being asked to reach a conclusion, but that is not what is happening today. Instead, the House of Commons is being asked to endorse the Home Secretary’s plan for an opt-out, and her negotiating strategy in relation to opting back in, less than a week after she set out her plan. She has had three years in which to think about the opt-out, and she gave the House three working days before calling for this vote.

The Select Committees have repeatedly asked the Home Secretary for the lists of measures, and have not been given them. She produced them only on Tuesday. When we called a debate on the European arrest warrant some weeks ago, she said:

“This is an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly”.—[Official Report, 12 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 421.]

So why is she rushing the House today? Why was this debate arranged by an emergency business statement? Ten days ago the Leader of the House said the business for today would be the Defence Reform Bill. What changed in less than a week? What made this an emergency that could not have been planned many weeks, if not many months, ahead?

Members have had no chance to seek the views of law enforcement experts on the list the Home Secretary has set out, no chance to seek the views of European and constitutional experts on the implications, no chance to find out whether transitional arrangements will be needed and what risks might be attached to them, and no chance to explore the financial penalty to Britain of pulling out. There has also been no chance for those who have concerns about the European arrest warrant to assess the impact of her reforms, and also no chance for those who support the European arrest warrant, as we do, to make sure that it will not be put at risk by those transitional arrangements or by opposition from the Commission in the negotiations.

And why do we need a vote today to endorse the Home Secretary’s plan? She does not need it to start negotiations. In fact she told the House of Commons in October that negotiations had already started. She does not need it to start the formal process with the Commission either. In fact her own motion—the second and latest motion, which she tabled in even more of a rush than the first one when it became clear that she was facing difficulties and opposition—says the Select Committees shall report

“before the end of October, before the Government opens formal discussions with the Commission, Council and other Member States”.

If she is not going to start formal negotiations until October, why on earth is there such a rush to endorse her strategy today?

The Home Secretary has not told us what status the Select Committee reports will have, or whether she might change her list once they have reported. She has said that there might be another vote in October once the Select Committees have reported, in which case why are we having this initial vote now? This looks like a bounce—an attempt to bounce Parliament; an attempt to get a rushed endorsement of her strategy without Parliament having a proper chance to consider what is going on. If she was serious about the parliamentary scrutiny to which she belatedly made reference in her second motion, she would agree that this vote on the Government’s strategy should be delayed and maximum scope should be given to the Select Committees to look both at opt-out and opt-in.

[Wayne David]

My right hon. Friend has suggested that there may be an attempt to bounce the House into making this decision, but does she think there is a possibility that the Conservative party Government want to have as little debate as possible on this issue because of divisions within the Conservatives’ own ranks?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that that is what it looks like. Why else would there have been such late notice that we were going to have this debate at all today? We have had plenty of discussions over many months about the European arrest warrant and the opt-in, opt-out process. Everybody has known that this was coming, so why was this the subject for an emergency business statement? We have had very few emergency business statements in this Parliament, yet this somehow qualified for one. That raises questions as to whether this was about political party management rather than having proper respect for the House.

[Pete Wishart]

Can we clarify the Labour position? Would Labour opt out of the EU policing and human affairs chapters if these conditions were met? Would the Labour party opt out of these measures?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am going to come on to the substance because our view is that we should not be opting out without proper guarantees and assurances in place about the key measures we think it is vital to be opted into.

Let me turn to the substance of the plan. Clearly, without time for scrutiny it is hard for the House to take a view on the mix of measures and the overall plan. I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposal to opt back into some of the measures, and I am glad she has ignored the Eurosceptic voices and has chosen to support the European arrest warrant. She is right about the seriousness of the cases in which it has been applied, and to support the arrest of Arunas Cervinskas, returned from Britain to Ireland after his attempted rape and serious assault of an 18-year-old girl, and the arrest only a few days ago of Mark Lilley, who was found hidden in a luxury Spanish villa after 13 years on the run for drug smuggling and dealing. He will soon be back in the UK to face his long prison sentence. Then there is the example that the Home Secretary used last week and again today of Hussain Osman, who was extradited back to the UK, after attempting to blow up a tube train, in less than two months. She is right to say that we cannot go back to the days when it took 10 years to extradite a terror suspect to France or when it took 11 years to get Ronnie Knight back from the costa del crime.

I am glad, too, that the Home Secretary has ignored the Eurosceptic voices and decided to support joint investigation teams; she has decided to support Operation Golf, in which 126 suspects from a Romanian crime gang were arrested for benefit fraud, money laundering and child neglect, and more than 270 trafficking victims were saved. We cannot go back to the days when foreign crime gangs were untouchable, allowed to damage our society or cause serious harm to victims. So I am glad that she has decided to ignore the Eurosceptic Back Benchers—to ignore the Fresh Start group—and instead to agree with the arguments made by Labour Members, by the police and by the Liberal Democrats.

I am glad, too, that the Home Secretary has accepted the exchange of criminal records, Eurojust, the co-operation to protect personal data, the co-operation to combat child pornography and measures on football hooliganism. She has come a long way since the Prime Minister described the European arrest warrant as “highly objectionable”. I am very pleased that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have done a U-turn on this; it is a shame that it has taken them so long.

Let me turn to some of the measures that the Home Secretary wants to opt out of—again, it is very hard to take a view without full scrutiny of the measures that the Government have set out.

[Mark Reckless]

Before the right hon. Lady goes through her list, will she give us some understanding of why the Labour Government left us with this block opt-out, binary choice rather than allowing us to pursue the measures on an intergovernmental basis, without the oversight of the European Court of Justice, in the way successfully negotiated by Denmark?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am not sure that Denmark and the opt-out negotiations is the best possible example to refer to, because Denmark’s experience of going through its opt-out and opt-in process was that it was turned down by the Commission on some of the measures it wanted to opt back into. I want to come on to deal with that point shortly.

We have said before that it is right to look at the proposals in the opt-out and we have no objection to the principle of opt-outs. Indeed, the Labour party negotiated the opt-out in the first place. However, it is also right to make sure that proper assurances and guarantees are in place for the key measures that we believe—and we now understand the Home Secretary believes—we should stay part of.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way but I do want to come on to some of the measures that the Home Secretary is proposing we opt out of and stay out of.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the shadow Home Secretary accept that if we opt in to a fundamental measure such as the European arrest warrant, some future Home Secretary could find an ECJ judgment that fundamentally went against the view of this House and that Home Secretary’s ability to conduct criminal justice properly, and they would be unable to do anything about it?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that opting into the EAW does mean it will be subject to the ECJ, but I have to say to him that the importance of the EAW, not only to our crime-fighting and to British police forces, but to victims is so immense that it would be highly irresponsible, against the national interest and against the interests of victims of crime to opt out of it. I understand his views, and it is important that he should have the opportunity to express them, but I just disagree with him on this matter, given the serious cases we have seen. About 900 suspected foreign criminals are extradited to other European countries each year as a result of the EAW being in place. Without the EAW it would take far longer to be able to send back the suspected criminals who ought to be returned, be it to their home country or to the countries in which they are alleged to have committed serious crimes, in order to be tried and to face justice.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

But all the uncertainty the right hon. Lady cites about the ability to opt back into some of these JHA policies stems from the fact that we had this block opt-out that the previous Government negotiated. What did they think were the advantages of a block opt-out as opposed to an optional opt-out on a case-by-case basis?

[Yvette Cooper]

The negotiations took place to secure the best possible deal and flexibility for the UK at the time, and it was right to do so. The hon. Gentleman signed the letter opposing all the opt-ins, and I understand where he is coming from. He should be able to express that view, but again, I disagree with him about the importance of these measures for fighting crime and protecting victims.

[Steve McCabe]

As we are going to keep coming back to this issue, is it not fair to admit that the block opt-out was the price that the other member states extracted to allow us an opt-out at all? We have discovered how difficult that is, and the suggestion that it would be easy to opt back in item by item may run into exactly the same difficulties.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Indeed, those concerns were raised by the House of Lords in its detailed and thorough report on the opt-out and opt-in process about the risks in the negotiating process. That is why it is important—I shall come on to this—to have those proper assurances in place and to have proper information about the attitude of other European member states across the Council and about the attitude of the Commission. I shall give way to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) if he still wants to intervene, but then I wish to make progress.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Accepting that it is important that there are extradition arrangements with other countries, does the right hon. Lady not think that it would be possible—since Lisbon, the European Union has legal personality—to negotiate an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU that covers this, but is not justiciable in the European Court of Justice?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Government have said that that would not be possible and that they would have to go back to the previous convention. Under that extradition convention, we experienced some long delays, including taking 10 years to send a suspected terrorist back to France. I do not think that is acceptable, and I do not think that the public would think that it was acceptable for us to have a French terrorist, or someone wanted in France, in this country and being unable to send him back quickly to face trial and to face justice.

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I shall give way once more, then I want to make progress, as many Members wish to contribute to the debate.

[Mr Jenkin]

We still do not know whether the right hon. Lady is in favour of opting out or not—it sounds like not.

Yes, it might be more difficult to extradite some people from the European Union to this country, or it might be easier if we had a bilateral agreement. Were we to maintain sovereign control of all our extradition arrangements we would be able both to extradite whomsoever we liked and to deport them, and we cannot do that if we are more and more subject to the European Court of Justice.

[Yvette Cooper]

In fact, having sovereign arrangements with no ability to extradite without having to go through a very long, legal process that may last 10 years does not help us to get rid of the suspected criminals whom we want to send back to Europe, and it does not help us to bring back to Britain the suspected criminals who have fled abroad. For very many years, people fled to the costa del crime, and Britain was unable to bring them back.

I shall make some progress, as I want to refer to the points that hon. Members have made about the measures that the Home Secretary wants to opt out of. Again, it is hard to take a full view without proper scrutiny and without Select Committees being able to look at this. The Prime Minister described this last week as

“a massive transfer of powers”.

The Home Secretary has described it as an historic moment, and said that we should celebrate the sovereignty involved in this particular opt-out process and in the Command Paper that she published last week. But we should look at the details in the explanatory memorandum of some of the things that we would opt out of. Britain would no longer be expected to have a good practice guide on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, but we will keep one anyway as part of other plans for the European investigation order. Nor will we sign up to the European judicial network, which offers a point of contact in each country for judicial queries, but that, too, will still happen anyway, again because of the European investigation order. We will not sign up to having someone to act as a contact point for cross-border allegations of corruption, but UK bodies plan to do so anyway. We will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, but we are already doing it so we will carry on doing so. I suspect somebody will send it to us in the post anyway. We will not sign up to a whole series of accession measures which apply to other countries and did not cover us anyway. Time and again we are opting out of dozens of measures that either do not operate any more or cover areas where we plan to carry on regardless, whether we are in or out.

[Mr Clappison]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. Of the 130 measures, are there any at all that she does not want to opt back into?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a whole series of measures in respect of which it will make no difference whether we are in them or out of them. We have no objection to opting out of a series of redundant measures. However, there must be proper assurances and guarantees about the measures that we need to opt back into. Rather than a massive transfer of powers, this is, as the Prime Minister said, more like a massive transfer of hot air. There is not the substance in this to justify the Home Secretary’s parade of historic significance and celebration of sovereignty.

Although the Home Secretary has not set out any major benefits from opting out of these measures, we know that there are risks to the serious measures where even she now admits we need to opt back in. She has no guarantees in place and no assurances from the Commission or the Council that at least on the most important measures—the arrest warrant, data sharing, joint investigations—we will be able to opt back in. She will know that the House of Lords pointed out that when Denmark exercised its opt-out,

“the Commission had frequently refused permission for the Danes to conclude agreements in certain areas”.

Nor has she any guarantee on the timetable or, for example, whether we will simultaneously be able to opt back into the European arrest warrant, whether there will be a gap in its operation, or whether complex or risky transitional arrangements will need to be negotiated.

Given how important the Home Secretary herself has said the European arrest warrant and various other measures are, surely it is important to ensure that there is no gap in operation. She can provide no assurance for the police that there will no interruption, therefore, of their use of the arrest warrant. The House of Lords report also said that

“the Government have not provided us with even a summary of the reactions of the other Member States to the Government’s intention to exercise the opt-out”

which

“may be critical in assessing the potential success or otherwise”

of the UK’s negotiation to rejoin particular measures. Surely on these most important measures she should seek assurances from the Commission and the Council before she asks this House to opt out.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for giving way; I was in contest with her in the days when I was shadow Attorney-General and she was in government. She will recall the 17th report of the European Scrutiny Committee in 2001 and she will also recall that there was very severe criticism by that Committee of the manner in which this was all done with respect to the European arrest warrant. If she does not remember, no doubt she can look it up. With respect to the proposal before the House and the official Opposition amendment, how does she reconcile the words in that amendment with article 10 of protocol 36? I am sure she will remember what that says.

[Yvette Cooper]

As always, I bow to the detail of the hon. Gentleman’s memory. I confess that it is true—I cannot remember the details on page 37 of the 17th report of the European Scrutiny Committee from 2001, though I am sure that if I gave way to him again, he could quote precisely to me, line by line, the detail of its conclusions.

Our position is simple. We think the European arrest warrant is so important that we should be getting assurances. We should be doing as the House of Lords suggested. We should be getting the summary of reactions of the other member states to the Government’s intention. We should be getting assurances from the Commission that it will look favourably on getting us back into the European arrest warrant simultaneously and that we do not have a gap in operation.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I hesitate to give way to the hon. Gentleman because I suspect he will quote from page 37, but I will do so briefly, then I want to make final progress.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention will be brief.

[Mr Cash]

Basically, the European Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the Government at that time, said:

“The presentation of radically changed texts in the last days of a Presidency, with calls for their immediate adoption, does not appear to us to be an appropriate way of determining changes at EU level to the criminal law…The legislative process should be open and transparent and not one of secret bargaining.”

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman probably does need to recognise that things have moved on slightly since 2001, and there are some important issues for us to resolve today.

As I said, we have no objection to the opt-out in principle. We did negotiate the option in practice. Nor do we have any objection to opting out of a series of redundant or superseded measures, which the UK does not participate in anyway. But we do have serious objections to going ahead with an opt-out without the assurances about the serious measures that we need to opt into. We have serious objections, too, to being asked in the House of Commons to adopt and endorse a half-formed strategy, which may or may not change by October.

The Home Secretary is asking the House of Commons to endorse her opt-out, to endorse her opt-in, to accept that a possible future Conservative Government will opt-out again, and to recognise that Select Committees may still shake it all about anyway. This is a massive game of hokey cokey. She is asking us to vote for the hokey and for the cokey, the hocus and the pocus, the smoke and the mirrors, and it is not an honest debate with Parliament about the important issues of crime and justice. The Home Secretary is asking for a blank cheque from the House of Commons today: a blank cheque on which of the measures she will end up opting back into; a blank cheque for European negotiations with no guarantees in place for the police. To those who want bigger changes in the relationship with Europe, she says, “Vote to opt out, and don’t worry yourselves about the detail to opt back in.” To those who support crime fighting, she says, “Vote to opt out, then leave me to negotiate. It will be fine.” There is no real substance for those who want to opt out, and a lot of risk and uncertainty for those who want to opt back into the series of measures.

This is a parliamentary charade: a promise of a massive transfer of powers that is not real; a promise that European crime-fighting powers are safe with no guarantees; a call to endorse the Home Secretary’s strategy with no proper scrutiny; and a vote that could wait until October. That is why we will not support her strategy tonight.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

So, after three years of briefing and trying to brandish her anti-European credentials, the Home Secretary has been forced to admit the truth: Britain does need the European arrest warrant, it does need joint investigation teams, Europol, the exchange of criminal records and help to tackle online child abuse. Why, then, did she and Members of her party all vote against all those measures just four weeks ago? Why has it taken the Home Secretary three years to realise that we do not want to go back to the days of the costa del crime, when British criminals could flee to Spain or European criminals could find safe haven here?

Last year the Government briefed The Sun that they would opt out of the European arrest warrant, opt out of the European evidence warrant and opt out of action against counterfeiting. Now the right hon. Lady admits that she needs them and she is going to do the opposite. The Prime Minister described the European arrest warrant as “highly objectionable” and the Fresh Start group wanted to stay out of everything, but the Home Secretary has had to admit what we and the police have argued from the start—we need the European arrest warrant in the fight against crime. We agree with reforming the European arrest warrant to make it proportionate, but as she has just shown, she does not need to opt out of working with Europe in order to do that.

The Home Secretary said very little in her statement about what she wants to opt out of or why, so let us look at the detail. Some of those measures have been replaced already, some do not operate any more, some we have never used anyway and do not have to, and others are just agreements to co-operate and we will carry on co-operating anyway. She is opting out of a directory of specialist counter-terror officers, which no longer exists anyway; a temporary system of dealing with counterfeit documents, which has been replaced anyway; a load of rules applying specifically to Portugal, Spain and Croatia, which do not apply in the UK; and a directory of contacts of extradition experts in each country. This is hardly a triumph of repatriation.

The Home Secretary has tried to play Britannia, clothing herself in the Union Jack, parading powers that she is repatriating from Brussels, but where is the substance? The truth is that she is not wearing a flag; it is simply a fig leaf. As for next week’s vote, she told the House that this was

“an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly”—[Official Report, 12 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 421.]

Yet she wants Parliament to vote on her proposals in six days’ time. She promised the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs Committee that they would be able to scrutinise the list and she has given them three working days to do so. She has been thinking about it for three years.

We will look at the right hon. Lady’s list and her motion for next week, but this is the wrong strategy—the wrong way to make serious policy on crime and justice. Where are the guarantees that we will be able to opt back into the serious measures we need, even the 35 measures that she supports? Where is the guarantee that we will be able to opt back into the European arrest warrant, the data sharing and the criminal records that she has now admitted we need? Presumably she has those guarantees. She told the House that she was starting negotiations with the Commission last October, so given how much is at stake in the fight against crime, I presume she has done a deal with the European Commissioner that we will definitely be able to opt back into those measures. Where is it?

Ministers have said that this will be a difficult negotiation, and we must not put those important powers at risk for the sake of opting out of a few contact lists. We must not make it easier for European criminals to hide here if we lose the European arrest warrant. We have just spent eight years trying to get rid of Abu Qatada. We do not want to make it easier for European criminals to stay here, so let the Home Secretary answer just two questions: will we be able to opt back into the European arrest warrant? Has she got a guarantee that we will be able to do so, and if we do not get that guarantee, will she ditch her whole opt-out plan? Without those guarantees this is a dangerous strategy that puts the fight against crime at risk.

The Home Secretary is putting politics before the fight against crime, but this is not a game. Crime does not stop at the channel. This is about whether we can stop dangerous criminals fleeing abroad and whether we can send foreign criminals back to face justice at home. This is about whether we can work with Europe on trafficking and child abuse, so where is the guarantee that this Home Secretary is not putting that serious fight against crime at risk?

[Mrs May]

Oh dear, oh dear. The right hon. Lady had an opportunity to come to the House and enter into a serious exchange about our ability to operate on a cross-border basis, catch criminals, and keep British citizens safe. She also had the opportunity to indicate whether the Opposition believe it right that we give greater safeguards and protections to British citizens in the operation of the European arrest warrant. Instead, we got a rant that did nothing other than expose the considerable confusion that lies at the heart of the Labour party on this issue.

The right hon. Lady asks whether we have guarantees for the negotiation, and complains about the negotiation process. Who negotiated this opt-out in the Lisbon treaty? It was not either of the coalition parties; the Labour party negotiated the opt-out, so any failings in how it operates are entirely down to the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.]

Abu Qatada (Deportation)

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The entire House should strongly welcome the work that the Home Secretary and her junior Minister have done to get Abu Qatada finally on a plane back to Jordan to stand fair trial. This is a good result for not just the Home Secretary, but the country. In his home country, Abu Qatada stands accused of plotting terror attacks against a school and tourists, and it is right that he should stand trial for those offences and for justice to be done.

After Abu Qatada was granted asylum in this country in 1994, he began preaching hatred and praising terror attacks. He is a dangerous man whose values we in this Parliament condemn, and that is why successive Home Secretaries—Labour and Conservative—have worked to deport him with the cross-party support of the House and that of the country. I strongly welcome the work of the Home Office and the Foreign Office to keep pursuing the case over many years, and we should also welcome the work of the Jordanian Government and Parliament to pass the treaties that were needed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) agreed the first memorandum of understanding with Jordan in 2005, which led to the agreement of the British courts that Abu Qatada could be deported without the threat of torture, and the Home Secretary rightly built on that agreement after the 2012 European Court judgment. She was also right to pursue the legal route, rather than listening to those who urged her to ignore the law. Without the rule of law, we are not free.

We should be in no doubt, however, that the case has taken far too long, so change is needed to deal with such unacceptable and costly delays. The attempt to deport Abu Qatada started in 2005. It took three years for his case to reach the Court of Appeal, another year for it to reach the Law Lords and a further three years for it to reach the European Court, and it is a further 18 months since then. That is far too long—too long in the British courts and then too long in the European Court.

We will examine the Home Secretary’s proposal that layers of appeal should be removed for immigration cases, because we believe that the process needs to be speeded up and that slow justice is in no one’s interests, but I urge her and the Secretary of State for Justice to consider the practical and administrative reasons why such cases take so long. The European Court now has a backlog of 150,000 cases and badly needs major reform. However, Ministers promised progress while Britain chaired the Council of Europe, yet little of substance was achieved. The borders inspectorate has said that a quarter of foreign criminals are sent home and a third are given leave to remain, but that 40% are not deported simply for administrative and bureaucratic reasons, so those cases need to be tackled.

The Home Secretary referred to the qualified right to a family life under article 8 which can be used in immigration cases, on which we have supported the Government, although that was clearly not the issue in the Abu Qatada case. She concluded by saying that she wanted to abolish the Human Rights Act and to consider withdrawing from the European convention, yet she herself has drawn on the Human Rights Act. She used it to prevent Gary McKinnon from being deported to the USA, but without the Act, she would have had no legal justification for doing so. It is unclear whether she wants no Bill of Rights at all, which would consequently mean that there would be little restriction on what the Home Secretary’s decisions could be, but will she confirm that the Government’s commission on a draft British Bill of Rights has replicated article 3 of the Human Rights Act, on the absolute prohibition of torture? As she knows, the central issue in the Abu Qatada case was always torture, which is something that we in Britain have always abhorred, so ditching the Human Rights Act and replacing it with her British Bill of Rights would have made no difference in that case.

The Home Secretary made much in her statement of the importance for us, as a civilised nation, of not acting outside the law. However, if we were to resile from the European convention, what signal would it send to those countries that we are trying to persuade to adopt higher standards of human rights and to follow the convention, such as Russia, regarding the criminal justice system, and Turkey, regarding the treatment of Kurds?

The Government have done immensely important work in the Abu Qatada case: deporting a dangerous man; delivering new legal deportation agreements so that we can remove people to Jordan and elsewhere, with new protection against torture in Jordan; and showing the British Government’s determination to pursue what is right while respecting the rule of law and having no truck with torture. The Home Secretary rightly claimed credit for all those things in her statement, and reforms are needed to deal with the problems of this case. We are pleased that Abu Qatada has finally been deported and we cannot have such delays in the future, but she should put forward her reforms without ripping up the things that she has just achieved.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the references that she made to the success in deporting Abu Qatada, and for saying that the Labour Opposition will look very seriously at the proposals that we bring forward in the immigration Bill. The Opposition supported changes to the immigration rules in relation to the interpretation of article 8, and we were grateful to them for that. Sadly, a number of judges have not heard Parliament in the way that all of us hoped. I hope that we will have support on the immigration Bill, because I think these changes are important.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the administrative reasons for the lack of deportation, and issues around the speed with which these cases are dealt with in the courts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is looking at that issue, because we all want to make sure that we can deal with these cases properly—with people having proper rights of appeal, so that we can ensure that their case is heard—but can deport people rather more quickly.

The right hon. Lady then sadly spent quite a bit of her response on the Human Rights Act, my views on it, and what might happen in the future in relation to it. I make two points in response. First, what she fails to appreciate is the concern that Government Members have about the role of Parliament in setting laws that operate in the United Kingdom. That is one of the issues that we are looking at in relation to the European Court and its ability to deal with cases that are taken through the courts in the UK. Secondly, she rather churlishly suggested that nothing happened when we chaired the Council of Europe. A considerable amount of work was put in by the former Justice Secretary, the Attorney-General and others, and it led to the Brighton declaration, which is bringing about change in the way in which the European Court operates, so that is another success for this Government, who took that opportunity to make some changes.

My final point is very simple. Members of the public cannot understand why, under the human rights laws that we currently operate, somebody who is a threat to this country is able to remain in it, year after year, without being deported. Frankly, if the right hon. Lady cannot understand that, she simply does not get it, and will not get an opportunity to be on the Government side of the House.

Stop and Search

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She has not given me a copy of the consultation, so I have not seen its proposals, but I do welcome the principles behind it. I agree with the Home Secretary that the stop-and-search powers are important and can help the police tackle serious problems. However, the way in which they have been used has raised serious concerns about, for example, the scale of use, the lack of intelligence-led approaches and the disproportionate use against ethnic minorities and the potential waste of money.

Stop-and-search powers are useful for the police—for example, enabling them to search for weapons or stolen goods without needing to arrest someone. The Home Secretary knows about Operation Blunt, run by the Met in 2009, which delivered a 13% reduction in knife crime and a 23% reduction in youth killings and seized over 1,000 knives and which did use intelligence-led stop and search as part of that strategy. People have been arrested for possession of guns, knives and other offensive weapons as a result of stop and search, too. But where stop and search is used inappropriately or too widely, it can cause a very wide range of serious problems.

Given the relatively low proportion of searches that lead to arrest, I welcome the work that has been done to reduce the number of stop and searches, which has fallen since 2008. I welcome the work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, to restrict inappropriate use, which helped deliver an initial 10% reduction in stop and searches. I also welcome the decision by the Home Secretary to restrict and change section 44 stops and searches. I welcome the decision of the Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, to restrict section 60 stops and searches and some of the work that he has done since then.

However, I think that it is right to go further, especially in the light of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on stop and search three years ago. The Home Secretary knows that that report found that

“some forces are using their powers disproportionately suggesting they are stopping and searching individuals in a way that is discriminatory, inefficient, and a waste of public money.”

It also found:

“The evidence points to racial discrimination being a significant reason why black and Asian people are more likely to be stopped and searched”.

It concluded:

“A reduction in disproportionality does not have to result in a rise in crime—on the contrary in the case of both Staffordshire and Cleveland”

where the EHRC worked with those forces,

“it has gone hand in hand with reduced crime rates and increased levels of public confidence in the police.”

Will the Home Secretary set out what has been done since the EHRC reported in 2010 to address the concerns that it raised?

The Home Secretary announced after the 2011 riots that she had asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to review stop and search. Has that review happened and will she publish the results?

Does the Home Secretary share my concern that that proportion of stops and searches that lead to an arrest has fallen, not risen, in the past five years? Previously, 12% of searches led to an arrest; now, a proportion of 9% is more likely. The right hon. Lady did not set out any specific proposals in her statement. What proposals in her consultation might make a difference to those figures and tackle the problem of searches being disproportionately targeted at ethnic minorities? Some of the figures that she quoted are seriously worrying. She will know that the EHRC examined evidence to see whether there are any explanations for those figures and found none sufficient to justify the disproportionate number of searches. The EHRC made specific recommendations for individual forces and for policing as a whole. Three years on, have those recommendations been implemented and what results have been delivered? Can she assure the House that her proposals will not jeopardise the recording of whether ethnic minorities are being targeted disproportionately? Clearly, we need to have that information.

I welcome the intention behind today’s statement and the consultation. The Home Secretary is right to support the principle of stop and search and right also to say that practice needs to be reformed to make sure that there is no discrimination and that it does not waste money or cause more problems in communities. However, it would help if she were more specific about her consultation proposals and how she plans to address the concerns.

[Mrs May]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s support for the consultation on stop and search going ahead. As she says, there has been a number of reports on the operation of stop and search. The EHRC, whose report was published a matter of weeks ago, looked again at the issue in five forces, including the Met and Thames Valley police. It identified that it had been possible for those forces to reduce the number of stop and searches, perhaps by targeting them better on an intelligence-led basis, and that doing so had also had an impact on the search-to-arrest ratio, but no discernible effect on public safety. The EHRC reinforced the view that we can get stop and search right; that if we get it right, it can be the valuable tool we want it to be; but that we can reduce the number of stops and searches without having an impact on public safety.

I did indeed ask ACPO to look at stop and search and best practice across the country, and it has done so. I also asked HMIC to do a piece of work across forces on how stop and search is used and recorded. I think that that report, which comes out next week, will, by providing information on the practices used on the ground, give the best evidence base on which to look ahead.

The right hon. Lady asked about recording. At a very early stage, we made changes to the amount of information that needs to be recorded on stop-and-search forms, but we retained, for example, ethnicity as one of the matters that should be recorded. We were able to reduce bureaucracy somewhat, but it remains the case that if a stop and search is undertaken when it is not necessary—when there is not reasonable suspicion—it can be a waste of police time.

The right hon. Lady’s main accusation seemed to be that, in my statement, I had not set out any firm proposals on stop and search, but the whole point of the public consultation is to go out and ask members of the public what has been their experience of stop and search, how they feel it should be used and what changes, if any, they think should be made. The consultation will include questions such as whether local communities should be more involved in working out how stop and search should be used in their area. There are some good examples, including in the London borough of Brent, of work being done with the local community. The point of the consultation is to ask people what they think; then, we will look the results alongside the evidence base in the HMIC report and come to the House in due course with firm proposals that I believe will enable us to get stop and search right.

Undercover Policing

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary in expressing support for the Lawrence family, who have indeed endured great tragedy. I also pay tribute to them for the work that they have done to pursue justice and reform over very many years. The whole country has been appalled by the allegations that police officers were involved in spying on or attempting to undermine the Lawrence family and their friends when they should have been supporting them to get justice done. It is vital that we get to the truth about what happened.

Stephen Lawrence was the victim of a terrible racist murder, yet it took 19 years for any prosecutions to succeed. We knew already about the failings of the initial investigations and prosecutions and what the Macpherson review identified as both incompetence and institutional racism at the time. We knew already about the failure to support and listen to the Lawrence family at the time, as chronicled in the Macpherson review, and we know, too, that immense work has been done since then, including reform of policing and the work by Clive Driscoll’s team in the Met to secure the two successful prosecutions last year.

However, these latest allegations must be taken very seriously because they suggest that the full information was not given to the Macpherson review at the time—a concern that we raised last year in the House over corruption allegations, where still we have no answers. Most disturbingly of all, the latest allegations suggest that police officers were working undercover to undermine victims of crime when the very job of a police officer is to support and get justice for victims of crime. That is why people across the country—including police officers, who do vital work each day—will be appalled by these allegations.

I welcome the work that the Home Secretary has set out today on undercover policing; it is vital that there should be much stronger oversight and control of the important work that police officers do but that nevertheless needs strong control. I also welcome the commitment of the Home Secretary to ensure an independent look at the allegations about undermining the Lawrence family. I am glad that she has gone further than the Prime Minister’s call this morning for the Metropolitan police to investigate; clearly, the investigation needs to be independent. However, it remains unclear whether she expects the lead on getting to the truth of the allegations to be taken by Mark Ellison QC, by Operation Herne under Chief Constable Creedon or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. It would be very helpful to have clarification on this.

Mark Ellison QC is indeed a well-respected independent person to review these allegations and report back to the Lawrence family, but he does not, of course, have the powers to instigate criminal or disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, Operation Herne is a wide-ranging report with a far wider remit looking into undercover policing, especially in the environmental movement, over very many years. The Home Secretary set out the huge scope of that investigation in her statement. May I suggest that we need a specific independent investigation into these allegations, given their seriousness and the significance of the Lawrence investigation and the Macpherson review for policing and confidence in policing? We need a clear timetable for getting to the truth. The investigation will also need to look at whether the Macpherson review was misled. Would it not be better to set out a clear and focused independent investigation into these allegations with a precise remit and the powers to pursue both criminal and disciplinary proceedings?

The Home Secretary said that any conclusions that the Ellison review comes to would still have to be handed to the IPCC or to another police force to pursue a further investigation. Given that these allegations already refer to events of 20 years ago, surely this would risk creating significant further delays. Has she considered giving the Ellison review additional powers or combining it with independent police or IPCC investigations in order to allow it to pursue the truth and trigger further investigations where necessary?

The vital work that police officers do every day to investigate crimes, bring offenders to justice and support victims relies on public confidence. As we saw with the Hillsborough review, we can never ignore any case where there is evidence that police officers may be involved in undermining victims or investigations rather than supporting them. For the sake of victims of crime and the excellent work that police officers do each day, there must be a proper, swift and effective system to investigate when things go wrong and when concerns like these arise.

I hope that the Home Secretary can assure the House that there is a clear remit for the review and that she will make sure that it is clear and independent, with the focus, the powers and the timetable it needs to get to the truth and pursue the investigations. It should not have taken 19 years for the Lawrence family to have seen some justice for the murder of their son, and they should not still have to fight for answers about the way they were treated and failed so many years ago.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the approach that she has taken to this very serious issue. We all agree across this House that these allegations are appalling and need to be looked into properly.

The right hon. Lady raised a number of issues about the independence and timeliness of any investigation, the proper form of the investigation, and bringing people to justice. She asked specifically whether the allegations that have been revealed in relation to the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family would be investigated under Operation Herne, by Mark Ellison, or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. Operation Herne was originally set up by the Metropolitan police, but it is now being led by Chief Constable Creedon. Although Met officers are still involved in that investigation, Chief Constable Creedon has also brought into it officers from his own force and elsewhere. The investigation by Chief Constable Creedon will look specifically at the tasking of officers in the SDS. That was part of the operation’s original remit. It is one of the issues that was raised by Peter Francis in the interview that he gave to the programme that will be shown tonight.

On Mark Ellison’s review, the right hon. Lady asked whether the Macpherson inquiry was misled. Another specific part of the remit of Mark Ellison’s review is that he looks into whether all the evidence that was necessary to be given to the Macpherson inquiry was indeed given to it. Obviously, the fact that Peter Francis has suggested that he and others were told not to give evidence to the Macpherson inquiry is a matter of particular concern, but that will be investigated by Mark Ellison. Having spoken to Mark Ellison and Chief Constable Creedon this morning, I am clear that they are working together; there has been a degree of interaction between the two. They are working to ensure that nothing falls between the two stools of the review and the investigation.

It is right that investigations into whether there has been misconduct or criminality are the remit of a police investigation—the Creedon investigation—with reference to the IPCC, as has been the case today, with the Met referring these allegations to the IPCC. There must be a proper pursuit of justice so that people can be charged with criminal offences or so that appropriate action can be taken for misconduct.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

There certainly is not one law for the rich and famous and another for everybody else, and if anybody is under the impression that there is, they are labouring under a misapprehension. I share the hon. Lady’s concern about domestic violence conviction rates, and we want to see them increase. Sometimes it is difficult to get a conviction in those circumstances, for reasons that will be obvious to everybody in the House. Domestic violence is an extremely serious crime, and although we have seen overall crime rates fall, we have not seen a marked fall in domestic violence rates. However, that is something we actually quite welcome because it may suggest a higher level of reporting of domestic violence than previously existed.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Women’s safety is being put at risk by Government reforms. According to Homeless Link, Ministers still have not sorted payments to refuges under universal credit, and it is now clear that sanctuary schemes are being put at risk. A woman who is a victim of domestic violence who has a specially installed panic room in her home has been told that she must pay an extra £12 because it counts as a spare bedroom under the bedroom tax. Another woman who is at serious risk from her abuser was moved by a multi-agency risk assessment conference into safe accommodation, but has now been told that she is under-occupying and will have to pay bedroom tax or move home again, when she is already feeling unsafe. It is no good the Minister passing the buck to local councils and chattering on about the discretionary housing payment, as his hon. Friends and colleagues have been trying to advise him. The fact is that such cases are happening across the country. Does he have any idea how many women are being affected in this way? Have Ministers even asked?

[Mr Browne]

I caution the right hon. Lady about scaremongering in that way and trying to use this extremely serious and harrowing issue to make a wider political point about the size of the welfare state, which after all is a part of Government policy on which Labour is in full retreat and is increasingly willing to accept Government policy. There are discretionary payments available to councils in the circumstances that she describes and I urge councils to make those payments available in the right circumstances.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that amongst other EU police, justice and home affairs measures, the UK should remain part of the European Arrest Warrant, the Schengen Information System II, Joint Investigations Teams, EU Council decision 2000/375/JHA on combating internet child pornography, EU Council decision 2002/348/JHA on international football security co-operation, Exchange of Criminal Records and Europol; supports reform to improve the operation of the European Arrest Warrant; and notes that without these measures the UK’s efforts to fight crime and ensure internal national security would be adversely affected.

Before speaking to the motion, I want to welcome the agreement of the Jordanian Parliament today to the treaty that the Home Secretary has negotiated, which we hope will speed the departure of Abu Qatada.

Today’s debate is about fighting cross-border crime. It is about whether the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are going to back the police and victims in the fight against cross-border crime or whether they are going to back the Eurosceptics on their own Back Benches who oppose things simply because they have the word “Europe” in the title. It is about whether the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are prepared to show leadership in the national interest, as Downing street claimed it would do in last week’s briefing, or whether they will cave in again. It is about what the Government believe is or is not important in the fight against crime.

We are still in the dark about the Government’s view on European co-operation, justice and home affairs. We all know that crime does not stop at the channel; criminals do not stop at our borders. There are an estimated 3,600 organised gangs operating across Europe, and they are involved in things such as drugs, human trafficking, online child exploitation and theft. We know, too, that as people trade and travel more than ever, cross-border crime is likely to keep increasing—whether we are inside the European Union or outside it. The police need to be able to keep up. That means they have to be able to deal with European police forces and they have to have a legal framework within which to operate, pursue and share evidence on a legal basis.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Once again, the Labour party is banging on about Europe. Since it always seems to do so in this place, do the Labour party and the right hon. Lady support invoking the block opt-out? Yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have said very clearly that we think a blanket opt-out, which means losing things such as the European arrest warrant or important data co-operation, would present a serious problem. Let me set this out in today’s debate. We know, for example, of the case of an 18-year-old student who was beaten until her eye sockets shattered in an attempted rape in Ireland. Her attacker, Arunas Cervinskas, left Ireland for London, but was returned by the Met three weeks after his European arrest warrant was issued. He is now serving an eight-year sentence in an Irish prison. That was the result of the arrest warrant and European police co-operation.

What is the Government’s position on this? Last year, the Prime Minister said:

“we will be exercising that opt-out”;

the Deputy Prime Minister then said, “No, we won’t”; and the Home Secretary said that

“the Government’s current thinking is that we will opt out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate”—[Official Report, 15 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 35.]

to opt back in. We know that Conservative Back Benchers have made their view clear: they want to opt out of the lot and do not want to opt back in to any of them. A letter signed by more than 100 Tory MPs says we should opt out of 130 of them. They certainly want out of the European arrest warrant, but what does the Home Secretary think? We have silence from her on what she thinks.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I wonder why the right hon. Lady’s party negotiated the opt-out in the first place.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Government were given plenty of time to look at all the measures, see whether any of them were redundant and make up their minds. Instead, they are leaving it to the last minute, dithering and putting at risk important measures in the fight against crime, creating immense uncertainty for our police forces. They are still not telling us what their view is on some of the most important measures of all—data sharing, criminal records or the European arrest warrant, for example.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I cannot resist the temptation to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood).

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am very grateful that the right hon. Lady is so attentive. Why does she not understand that what we want is to have democratic accountability to the British people through this House of Commons? We want these things done by agreement between our country and the European Union, but not under European law. Her party gave away 138 vetoes over crucial policy areas, which makes it very difficult to govern this country democratically.

[Yvette Cooper]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is really aware of the detailed implications of what he has said. He is arguing for a huge number of different bureaucratic arrangements with every country, whether on extradition or on legal frameworks. Let me give him an example of how the current framework operates. James Hurley, who was convicted of killing a police officer and escaped from custody, was returned two years ago under a European arrest warrant, and is now back in a British prison.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way, but then I must make a bit of progress.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Lady keeps talking about these awful situations as though the only possibility were some Europe-wide collective agreement under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Does she not accept that it is perfectly possible for there to be extradition agreements between different countries that do not become subject to the European Court?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is indeed possible for there to be a huge number of extradition agreements that take long periods to negotiate. Let me give the hon. Lady one example. Before we had the European arrest warrant—when we simply had separately negotiated extradition arrangements—it took 10 years to extradite a suspected terrorist from Britain to France. That is the consequence of the kind of haphazard framework that the hon. Lady wants us to adopt. Meanwhile, we have a European arrest warrant that allows decisions to be made swiftly, and to be made in the interests of the victims of crime.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly cannot resist the temptation to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Cash]

The right hon. Lady may recall several cases in which British citizens have been caught up in arrest warrants, including one in Staffordshire, where someone was found guilty in absentia and given a monumentally long prison sentence although he was not remotely connected with the murder concerned. There are serious questions to be asked about whether the judiciary, as it is described, is actually run by politicians in certain cases.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. When the European Union Committee in the House of Lords was considering precisely these issues, and discussing cases in which there had been allegations of injustice, it commented:

“these arose from the consequences of extradition, including long periods of pre-trial detention in poor prison conditions, which could occur under any alternative system of extradition. Relying upon alternative extradition arrangements is highly unlikely to address the criticisms directed at the EAW and would inevitably render the extradition process more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.”

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must make a bit of progress first.

We have been struggling to find out what the Government are actually doing, and what their position actually is on these important measures. Today’s edition of The Guardian gave us some clues. It states that the Prime Minister is expected to opt into 30 to 40 measures, that a deal is being done by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who sits in the Cabinet Office, and that

“the Tories want to opt back in to no more than 29”

so that they can say that they opted out of 100.

“The Lib Dems, who had been pressing for… 70…recently settled on a figure of about 45.

Ministers are planning to split the difference between 45 and 29, meaning the coalition will sign up to about 35 of the measures.”

This, it appears, is a numbers game. It is no way to decide on serious issues that affect the fight against crime and future justice for victims. However, we think it excellent that the Government have handed over negotiations to the right hon. Member for West Dorset. We recall that the last time the Prime Minister tried that, in relation to Leveson, the Cabinet Office Minister came over to our place and allowed us to draft the policy. We are quite happy to do that again if the Government cannot sort it out.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I realise that my right hon. Friend would quite like the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) to be involved in these discussions, but I am a bit perplexed by the situation. Such an important question should really involve the Home Secretary. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Home Secretary should be there making the deals, rather than the Cabinet Office and the Treasury?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The issue is immensely important and there must be a question about where the Home Secretary is in these discussions. Where is the voice for British policing? Where is the voice for law enforcement? Where is the voice for British victims? If she is not being heard on behalf of the police and of victims, she is letting them down.

Let me consider some of the key measures that the Government are threatening to opt out of. The police have said that the most important to them is the European arrest warrant, which gives them the power to arrest people here who are wanted for crimes back home, gives the courts the power to send them swiftly home to face justice, means that police forces abroad will act to arrest suspected criminals who have fled from justice here and means that courts across Europe can send those suspects swiftly back.

The teacher who ran off to France with a pupil was arrested under the warrant and returned within weeks. The man who tried to blow up the tube at Shepherd’s Bush was quickly returned from Italy. However, as I told the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), it took 10 years of legal wrangling to send a suspected terrorist back to France before the European arrest warrant was introduced.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend resist the urges of the Government parties to play the game of trying to broker how many measures they can opt in or out of? She is absolutely right to raise the issue of counter-terrorism. Is she aware that about 10% of the work of Europol is related to counter-terrorism? Is that not the compelling reason why we must keep these arrangements in place?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, because terrorists do not respect international borders; they work across them. We know that many of the growing threats to this country involve cross-border crime or terrorism and that is why the police and those who seek to protect us must have the powers and tools to work across borders.

Let me give another example of the use of the European arrest warrant. The Salford armed robber, Andrew Moran, was found hiding in a villa in Alicante just four weeks ago. He had escaped from court after being convicted some years ago, but when the Spanish police found him they were able to arrest him straight away under a European arrest warrant. Let us turn back the clock to Ronnie Knight, the east end armed robber who fled to Spain before the days of the European arrest warrant. He did not have to change his appearance or his identity or hide behind the walls of a villa; he could wander around and do as he liked, because we had no means of getting the Spanish police to arrest him or the Spanish courts to send him home. He was able to open an Indian restaurant and a nightclub, ignoring British justice and the victims of crime.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the European arrest warrant and we in the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly want to see it kept. Does she agree that there have been cases in which it has been misused and that it could be improved by a proportionality test and the new Eurobail proposals, which could avoid problems such as Mr Symeou having to spend time in Greece? We must ensure that it works properly.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some aspects of the warrant should be improved and reformed and there are other areas of European co-operation that we should seek to improve. For example, we should ensure that the European arrest warrant is not used for too many minor crimes. We should also work with other European countries to ensure that when people become victims or suspects of crime abroad, they can be assured of proper legal support and justice. But it is still better to stay in and argue for reform than to pull out of the European arrest warrant when it is so important to our police and to victims.

The Prime Minister has said in the past that the European arrest warrant is highly objectionable, yet the Association of Chief Police Officers has said that opting out of it means

“higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”

What is the Home Secretary’s view? Are we in or out of the arrest warrant? In or out? In the last year alone, Britain sent 900 people back to other countries under an arrest warrant, 95% of whom were foreign nationals. The Home Secretary makes great play of complaining that she cannot send back enough foreign criminals, but now she wants to make it harder to send back people suspected of serious crimes abroad—why?

The European arrest warrant—in or out? The prisoner transfer framework—in or out? That is the one that means we can transfer prisoners back to their home country without their consent. What about the Home Secretary’s position on joint investigation teams, which have helped to stop a human trafficking ring bringing young Czech women into Britain for prostitution and rape. Thirty-three victims were found and nine people were convicted as a result of a joint investigation team. A similar operation undertaken with the Romanian police stopped a gang trafficking children into the UK and meant that victims were protected. So joint investigation teams—in or out? What about sharing criminal records? The UK has received more than 500 notifications of British citizens convicted in other EU member states who need to go on the sex offenders register here at home. I am happy to give way to the Home Secretary if she will stand up and tell us whether she supports the sharing of information about sexual offences so that people can be put on the sex offenders register here. Yes or no? In or out? [Interruption.] Again we have silence from the Home Secretary, who cannot tell us, whether it be on sharing criminal records or on the European arrest warrant, what the Government’s position is on these vital measures.

[Mr Raab]

The Opposition motion refers to eight specific measures out of the 135 or so, so I just want to clarify the Labour party’s position: is it advocating the exercise of the block opt-out and then selectively opting back in, or is it saying that there should be no exercise of the block opt-out at all?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not yet told us whether she actually has a workable way to do that, and we wait to see whether she has a workable way to deliver that at all. She has said that she wants a blanket opt-out, but most of her Back Benchers want to opt out of the lot and not opt back into anything. Our clear view is that we should not have a blanket opt-out that puts at risk the European arrest warrant and the crucial things needed for the fight against crime.

On criminal records, is the Home Secretary in or out? Again we have no answer from her. Sharing alerts on suspected criminals, or trafficking or kidnapping victims, crossing borders—in or out? Minimum standards for tackling online child exploitation—in or out? Information sharing on football hooligans—in or out? Co-operating on seizing criminals’ assets—in or out? Taking account of foreign convictions in court cases—in or out? Working with other countries on dealing with international genocide and war crimes—in or out?

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she can tell me about any of those. I understand that her view is to opt out of all of them and then simply on each measure to negotiate individually a separate agreement with every single country. That is her position. Perhaps she can tell me whether she has had any success persuading the Home Secretary of her position or whether the Home Secretary simply does not have a view on any of these matters.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Lady can always intervene on me when it is my debate and my motion, but this is her motion, so I am asking her something. Presumably she is aware that the only alternative is to opt out en bloc—that was the negotiation that her Government agreed when they were in power. So does she intend to opt out en bloc and then opt back into certain measures—if so, which ones? Or does she not intend to opt out at all? She is speaking as though we have the alternative of simply picking and choosing, but she knows, or should know, that that is not the case.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that the hon. Lady in not in fact clear about what the position is, because she does not know what she is actually going to be able to opt back into. When Denmark tried to opt out and then opt back into a series of measures half its requests to opt back into measures were refused. That is why we do not believe that anything should be done to jeopardise the European arrest warrant, the data sharing and many of the other measures that I have set out today.

Two different positions are coming from Government Members at the moment. We have a simple position from the Back Benchers, which is that they just want to opt out of everything, and we have a blank sheet of paper from the Front Benchers, whereby they seem to hint that they might opt back into a few things but they will not tell us which. I can tell the House very clearly that, on the European arrest warrant, we should be in. We think that we should be in when it comes to proposals to take account of foreign convictions in our court cases, and when it comes to working with other countries on international genocide, yet we have heard nothing from Government Members on which of these vital measures they support, and on whether they have any workable way of opting back into the proposals.

The House of Lords European Union Committee looked at all this in some detail, and it says:

“The European Arrest Warrant is the single most important of the measures which are subject to the opt-out decision…opting out would have significant adverse negative repercussions for the internal security of the UK and the administration of criminal justice in the UK”,

so why are the Government doing this? The truth is that none of these questions is about crime or justice. All the points that Government Members are raising are about Europe, and the anxiety and hysteria about Europe among Back Benchers. Those Back Benchers want to ditch all European crime and security co-operation, which the police say is vital, and the work that children’s charities say helps victims.

The Government’s amendment to the motion says that they are looking at the issue, but that we should not worry because there will be a vote before any opt-out is exercised. It would be helpful if they could clarify whether there will be any vote on opting back in again, or whether they are simply planning to have a vote on opting out. They should also tell us today whether they know if they will be able to opt back into any of the measures, and which ones they think are so important that they should not be put at risk.

The truth is that this is not about crime; this is about politics. This is not about helping victims; it is about division on Europe. For the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to give in to their Back Benchers, who simply want to oppose all things European, would be shameful. It would be ignoring the evidence and expert advice. It would be helping criminals and betraying victims. That is why we are holding this debate and this vote today.

I want to remind the House what this is really all about. I have an e-mail from Beatrice Jones—the mother of Moira Jones—who set up the Moira Fund to help families. She first got in contact with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, who passed on her concerns to me, and I have spoken to her. She says:

“I have been appalled to read that a group of Tory MPs is putting pressure on the Prime Minister to use his right to pull out of EU crime and policing, including the EU arrest warrant. You may remember that my beloved daughter Moira Jones was assaulted, abducted, and savagely raped and murdered by an EU national who was allowed to come here in spite of a long criminal record of violence. He fled the country but because of the dedication and determination of Strathclyde police along with the cooperation of the Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country. We know that because of much work at the Home Office, with the Border Agency, and with the implementation of the ECRIS”—

the European criminal records information system—

“there is more cooperation and information between a much greater number of EU states….We want it to go much further so that another murder like Moira’s cannot occur and we did think that things were moving slowly in the right direction.

To read of this backward step is simply awful. As long as EU nationals are allowed to freely enter the UK and vice versa, then EU police cooperation is essential for the safety of all. The current system needs further development not to be disbanded.

Clearly there are those around who have no conception of what it is to lose a daughter in truly horrific circumstances. We continue to struggle and I have persisted in trying to bring about change…But there are things that with the best will in the world, we cannot do….If there is anyway you can do anything to highlight our concerns, I implore you in Moira’s name to do what you can.”

That is why we are holding this debate today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have listened to the remarks I made earlier in my speech, when I made it clear that a decision by the Government has to be taken by 31 May 2014, while 1 December 2014 is the date by which the opt-out takes final effect, so by definition any negotiations in relation to opt-in must take place before that takes effect.

This is an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly, despite the entreaties of the Opposition. I want to make it clear that no final decision has been made on this matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

Under what circumstances does the Home Secretary think it would be acceptable to stay out of the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

I will move on to the principles that the Government will follow when looking at each and every measure and considering whether to opt back in. In her speech, the right hon. Lady made something of an issue about the timetable and asked why we had not yet come to a decision. I refer her to the remarks of the former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, in the debate on the Lisbon treaty in 2008. She said that

“on the whole body of police, criminal and judicial measures that are transferred, it is our decision—six months before that five-year period finishes—as to whether we want to continue in those measures, if they have not been renegotiated or repealed during that time. We will make that decision on the basis of whether continuing in those measures, with ECJ jurisdiction, is in the national interest. We have negotiated the ability to make that decision and we have negotiated that transitional period.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 175.]

That is precisely what this Government are following.

My statement on 15 October last year set out the Government’s approach: we intend to opt out of all police and criminal justice measures that pre-date the Lisbon treaty and then negotiate with the Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures that it is in our national interest to rejoin. That remains the Government’s position.

As I explained in a letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in November last year, we will consider how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. We will also consider the impact of each measure on our civil rights and traditional liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of what is and what is not in the list of the 2014 decision that we have to take, and the measure that I have referred to is in it.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is right to refer to that particular directory as being defunct. Arguably, therefore, it is relatively harmless. If she has such a precise view on that measure, will she tell us her view on the European arrest warrant? That, not all the defunct directories, is the central subject of the motion and the most important measure at stake. ACPO has said how crucial it is and it has been used in countless different criminal cases. Why does the Home Secretary seem to be the only person who does not have a view on the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

Sadly, the right hon. Lady does not seem to understand what the decision is about and, therefore, what her debate is about. Her debate is about the fact that her Government negotiated a situation in which we can either opt out of all the measures and then try to opt back in, or opt into all the measures.

I have been very open that it would not be appropriate to opt into any measure that we think would take considerable time and money. We will not be in a position to immediately rejoin Prüm, which requires member states to allow the reciprocal searching of their databases for DNA profiles, vehicle registration data and fingerprints, because implementing it fully will take years and require substantial funding. The previous Government estimated that it would cost more than £30 million back in 2007—that figure may well be higher now—and they subsequently did nothing to implement it.

The shadow Home Secretary’s spurious accusations about the Government’s European policy seem to be a cover for the confusion on her own Benches. I note that in response to a number of interventions she did not clearly state what her own policy is. It seems to be to negotiate an opt-out but not exercise it and to sign up to costly measures such as Prüm but not implement them. That is not the sort of leadership that the United Kingdom needs in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have consistently raised the problem of the abuse of free movement at meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and we are working with other EU member states to curb that abuse. Free movement of persons is a long-standing principle of the EU, but those rights are not unlimited, and the Government take a robust approach against those who come to the UK not intending to work, but simply to rely on benefits. Abuse of free movement is not just a UK problem; it will take the joint efforts of all our EU partners to tackle it. We have been raising concerns for the past three years at meetings of EU Ministers, and I am pleased to say that last Friday it was decided that the European Commission and Ministers would take the issue forward.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s condemnation of the vile attack on Drummer Lee Rigby and of the recent attacks on Islamic religious institutions. I also welcome her comments about the importance of protecting all our citizens and communities from hatred and of supporting hope instead.

The Home Secretary will agree that the intelligence we get from abroad is vital to our national security and to protecting people against terrorism, but that it needs to be gathered under a clear legal framework with proper safeguards, checks and balances in place in order to maintain public confidence. In addition to the Foreign Secretary’s forthcoming statement, will she therefore respond on the issue of the legal framework operating for the Home Office? Will she tell us whether all Home Office, police and security service requests for intercept information from the internet, whether secured from UK agencies or from abroad, are governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and covered by ministerial warrants and the oversight of the intercept commissioner?

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement shortly on this issue. She will also understand that it is a long-standing principle that the Government do not comment on intelligence matters, but I want to make it absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend has also made clear, that at all times GCHQ has operated fully within a legal framework. I recognise that Parliament has a legitimate interest in these matters, which is why the Intelligence and Security Committee has a remit to look at such issues, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has indicated that his Committee will indeed be conducting an urgent inquiry.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s response, and clearly the House will listen to the Foreign Secretary’s statement shortly too. I understand that she cannot answer publicly about the content and detail of intelligence procurement, but will she set out very clearly what the legal framework is that governs Home Office and Home Office-related access to intercept and intelligence, and will she write to me setting out her understanding of the current legal framework? It would be very helpful. Will she also confirm that the ISC will have the full support of the Home Office and herself in accessing all the information it needs to pursue this issue? She will know that because intelligence is so important for our future and our national security, public confidence in it must be maintained.

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady is aware, intercept warranty is covered by RIPA, and as I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly make a statement about the legal framework under which the agencies operate. I suggest that she waits for that statement. I am clear that the ISC will have available to it the evidence it needs to conduct the inquiry, and it is right and proper that it does that. Of course, it has a new status in terms of its relationship with Parliament. I think people will want the Committee to conduct that inquiry, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, who chairs it, has indicated it will.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We think it is right that the power should be available, but of course we would expect it to be used proportionately. We would expect the courts to adopt such an approach.

Part 6 provides for the community remedy and community trigger, which will put victims at the heart of the response to low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. The community remedy will give victims a powerful voice in determining the appropriate punishment to be attached to an out-of-court disposal. The community trigger will ensure an effective power to compel local agencies to review their response to repeated instances of antisocial behaviour. The public have a right to expect an appropriate and proportionate response to each reported incident.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the areas where the community trigger was piloted there were 44,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour, but that the trigger was successfully activated only 13 times? Does she regard that as a success for the pilots?

[Mrs May]

The whole point about our approach is that we expect the police and other relevant agencies to act when an instance of antisocial behaviour is reported to them. As I am sure hon. Members across the House will have experienced, all too often several instances will be reported without any action appearing to be taken. The community trigger will ensure that a community can get a response. I would hope and expect that the community trigger was not necessary in many instances, because the police and other agencies had reacted to the first report, rather than waiting for several.

[Yvette Cooper]

If the Home Secretary is right that the trigger will guarantee a more rapid response, why does the Bill say it will happen only when there have been at least three complaints, which means that there could be five, 10 or as many as the local police and crime commissioner and council decide?

[Mrs May]

The reason is simple: the Government believe in local discretion in some areas. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition over the ability of local areas and police and crime commissioners to be involved in determining what is right for their circumstances and local area. As the right hon. Lady says, we have put a figure in the Bill to indicate when we think a trigger would be appropriate, but it would then be down to the local area to determine. For some time, the Opposition have been saying that the fact that there have not been many instances of community triggers is somehow a failure. Actually, we want antisocial behaviour dealt with on the first report, rather than people waiting and feeling that they have to use the community trigger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will need to come back to my hon. Friend on that point. I do not think that we go into quite that issue in the Bill. The Bill will give the IPCC the powers, but there will obviously be subsidiary ways of operating in relation to this. I will look into the point for her. That is me standing here at the Front Bench and being honest!

This part of the Bill will also require forces, police and crime commissioners and others to respond promptly and publicly to IPCC recommendations. Also, as recommended by Tom Winsor, we shall replace the existing cumbersome and ineffective police negotiating machinery. The new police remuneration review body will help to ensure that we can deliver pay and conditions that are fair to police officers and to the taxpayer.

We are also building on the role of police and crime commissioners as local victims’ champions by conferring on them new powers to commission victims’ services. PCCs are best placed to determine the needs of victims in their communities, and they should be empowered to provide the appropriate support. Finally in this part of the Bill, we will continue the work that we started in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to ensure that counter-terrorism powers protect the public, but that they do so in a fair and proportionate manner. As David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, has reaffirmed, the port and border security powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 are

“an essential tool in the protection of the inhabitants of this country from terrorism”.

Reducing the maximum period of detention from nine to six hours and providing for persons detained at ports to have access to legal advice will ensure that these powers can continue to be exercised proportionately.

We have long needed to make changes to the Extradition Act 2003 in order to make it operate in a fairer and more efficient fashion. Part 11 of the Bill introduces a number of such changes. They are in line with recommendations made in Sir Scott Baker’s independent review of our extradition arrangements and build on the introduction of a forum bar to extradition, which we enacted in the last Session. Among other things, the Bill addresses the current unfairness that can arise from the strict operation of the time limits for serving an appeal against extradition.

The Baker review also confirmed that some of the concerns that have been expressed, including by a number of my hon. Friends, about the proportionality of the European arrest warrant were well founded. As the House will know, this is one of the pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures that we are examining to determine whether it is in the best interests of the British people to continue to be a party to the current arrangements. I hope to make a statement to the House soon about the conclusions of that review and the 2014 decision.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that about 900 suspected foreign criminals were deported under the European arrest warrant last year? Does she not think that quite a good thing?

[Mrs May]

It is important that we have the powers that we need to deal with criminality. I am on record as saying that we need to see the deportation and extradition of foreign criminals, but it is also right for the Government —and, in due course, this House—to look at whether the current arrangements are appropriate. Concerns have been raised, not only by Members of Parliament but by Sir Scott Baker, about a number of issues relating to the European arrest warrant, and it is absolutely right that the Government should look at them.

Finally, I want to draw the House’s attention to a couple of the provisions in part 12 of the Bill. One way in which we can free up resources is by increasing the number of police-led prosecutions. Having to pass low-level offences to the Crown Prosecution Service wastes police time. The police already deal with more than 500,000 cases a year in which people plead guilty. Under the provisions in this part, up to a further 50,000 prosecutions for low-level shoplifting offences will be able to be handled by the police, empowering front-line officers and bringing swifter justice for retailers.

In this part of the Bill, we have also clarified the test for determining eligibility for compensation when someone has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The absence of a clear statutory definition of what amounts to a miscarriage of justice for these purposes has led to repeated legal challenges and shifting case law. As well as providing greater certainty, the new statutory test will ensure that compensation is paid only to those who are clearly innocent.

Since the day I was appointed Home Secretary, I have had one simple priority for the police: to cut crime. The Bill will help to ensure that the police, working in partnership with others and focusing on the rights of victims and communities, can continue to do precisely that. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

We have another parliamentary Session and another Home Office Christmas tree Bill. Last year’s Bill had a bit of crime, a bit of judicial reform, a bit of extradition and a bit of drugs. This year’s has a bit on police standards, a bit on guns and a bit on dogs, but in none of those areas does it go far enough. The Christmas tree decorations cannot hide the fact that the Bill is weak on tackling antisocial behaviour, at a time when the Office for National Statistics shows concern among the public that antisocial behaviour is going up.

There are areas of the Bill that we will support, as well as areas in which we want the Government to go further. We called for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to cover private companies, and we are glad that those provisions are in the Bill. We support the measures relating to the College of Policing, too, although we believe that the Government should go further on police standards. We agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee that new firearms offences are needed for possession of firearms with intent to supply, and we are glad that they are in the Bill.

We agree that forced marriage should never be tolerated. It is a terrible violation and can destroy people’s lives. The law should be strengthened to build on the work done to stop forced marriage, although the Government need to work with experts to get the detail right and also to ensure that cuts to refuges or to legal aid do not undermine the support that victims need in practice.

The central claim for the Bill, as we can see from its title, is that it will tackle antisocial behaviour, and here there are many false promises. Three years ago, the Home Secretary said that she was determined to take action on antisocial behaviour, yet the figures from the Office for National Statistics show that eight out of 10 people say antisocial behaviour is going up, that nearly half say it is going up a lot, and that only one in 10 say it is going down in their area.

So what have the Government done to help? They have cut the community safety funding by nearly two thirds, even though those are the funds that help communities to pay for extra police community support officers, for youth activities, for action against gangs, for extra street lighting and for CCTV. This is the crime prevention investment that helps to save money and police time later on, yet the Government have cut it severely. They have cut it not just by 20% in line with police cuts, or even by 23% in line with the Home Office budget, but by over 60%.

This is all happening at a time when the Government are cutting 15,000 police officers, including more than 7,000 from the most visible units of all. The Home Secretary claimed earlier, in Home Office questions, that a higher proportion of police officers were now on the front line. However, a slightly higher proportion of a much lower number still means fewer police officers, and the proportion who are visible has gone down from 12.3% to 11.8%. The Government are not just cutting police numbers; they are making things harder for them, too.

[Alok Sharma]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, but I really wish she would not keep undermining the police force, which is doing a fantastic job. In the Thames valley, we have had crime down and detection rates up year after year. Why can she not just acknowledge that we have police forces that are doing a great job in some difficult circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Police officers certainly are working extremely hard in very difficult circumstances. Many of them are finding themselves stretched in very different directions. Chief constables are also working immensely hard to keep their area safe and to reduce crime. However, we need to recognise that at the same time as 15,000 police officers are being cut from the force, we are seeing 30,000 fewer crimes being solved and a big increase in the use of community resolutions for serious and violent crimes. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I find that to be a matter of serious concern. It is important to get justice for victims, and that is being put at risk by the Government’s approach.

[Dr Huppert]

It is always very tempting to offer to spend more money to fix all sorts of problems. Is the right hon. Lady making a commitment that the Labour party would spend a huge amount more money on the police, and where would that cash come from?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have said very clearly that we would have reduced the policing budget by around 12% rather than 20% over the course of the current spending review. That would not have led to the reduction of 15,000 police officers over the course of this Parliament. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that he promised to increase the number of police officers by 3,000—it was in his party’s manifesto. That is what he called for, and he has done the absolute opposite. Government Members have not only reduced police officers on the street; they are making it more difficult for them to fight crime.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

On that point, when I talk to police officers in Stoke-on-Trent, who are doing a fine job in extremely difficult circumstances because of all the cuts, and not just to their positions—[Interruption.] I wish the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) would stop chuntering while I am trying to ask a question. Police officers already find themselves in difficult circumstances, yet they also tell me that the toolkit of the various powers available to them is being reduced at the same time. How can that help?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Looked at across the board—whether it be what is happening with DNA or CCTV—Government Members are making it harder for the police to do their job.

After the London riots, CCTV helped to secure huge numbers of convictions. We all know from our constituencies of communities and estates that have worked hard to get CCTV and how it has helped to provide security in those areas, cutting down on antisocial behaviour and abuse. Yet the freedom of information requests put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) have shown that one in five councils is now cutting CCTV under a Home Secretary who is wrapping CCTV in a whole load of new red tape. There are already safeguards for residents’ privacy, but the Home Secretary wants a whole load of extra checks, rules and administration just to make sure. The impact assessment produced by the Home Office has found that these new regulations will cost the police and councils £14 million to comply with—and it could be as much as £30 million at a time when resources are so stretched. The Home Secretary, who has already wasted £100 million on the November police and crime commissioner elections now wants to waste up to £30 million making it harder, not easier, to get CCTV. The Home Secretary welcomed extra CCTV in her own constituency three years ago; she should stop making it harder for everyone else to get it.

[Luciana Berger]

Does my right hon. Friend share my pride in the fact that City Watch in Liverpool does such a formidable job with its extensive CCTV network, which is visited by people from not only other cities across the UK, but from across Europe because it is so advanced? It has managed to prosecute people successfully for the crimes that they have committed. Would it not be a shame if other cities and places across the UK could not benefit in the same way as the people of Liverpool have, making ours one of the safest cities in the country?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We have seen the impact in a whole series of areas—as I said, during the London riots, for example. In fact, at the time of the riots, the Prime Minister said of CCTV:

“We are making technology work for us…And as I said yesterday, no phoney human rights concerns about publishing photographs will get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice.”

It would seem, however, that the Home Secretary is tying herself up in exactly those so-called “phoney human rights concerns” that she has pledged to abolish.

This Bill will not make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are indeed making changes to powers: antisocial behaviour injunctions will be replaced with crime prevention injunctions; public space orders will be replaced with public space protection orders; acceptable behaviour agreements will be replaced with acceptable behaviour contracts; premises closure notices will be replaced by closure notices; and noise abatement notices will be replaced by community protection notices. No set of powers will be perfect, and everyone wants to make sure that the system is as swift and easy to use as possible. The trouble is that the Bill will not achieve that. There is a lot of changing of names and a lot of tinkering at the margins. Some changes may help and make it simpler; others may make it harder while agencies work out how the new processes are supposed to work.

Housing associations, for example, have warned that it will take five years to develop the case law for the new powers to work. The Government’s own figures admit that it will require at least 150,000 hours of police training to use these powers, even though many of them are remarkably similar to the old powers they replaced. The fact is that communities, councils, housing associations, the police and the courts need a wide range of tools to deal with very different problems. The risk for the Home Secretary is that, by trying to squeeze a wide range of problems into a narrow number of powers, she may make it harder to achieve that.

On the one hand, many organisations have written to The Times today to say that they fear this will mean too heavy-handed treatment for the lowest level of antisocial behaviour or nuisance, while on the other hand police officers have raised with me their concern that the powers will not be strong enough to deal with the worst problems. The one-size-fits-all approach has risks.

We need early intervention. We do not want to see young people unnecessarily criminalised or dragged through the courts for low-level problems when it can be sorted out on the spot. We do want to know that persistent, aggressive antisocial behaviour that can terrorise neighbours or residents will be dealt with properly, including by criminal sanctions where needed. Yes, we should have community resolutions and remedies for antisocial behaviour, but they must not be abused.

We know that community resolutions are now being used for serious and violent crimes, including for domestic violence. Last year, community resolutions were used for 33,000 serious and violent crimes, including in 2,500 domestic violence cases, where the Association of Chief Police Officers was clear that they should not be used.

[Alok Sharma]

The right hon. Lady is talking about the views of the police, so let me quote what ACPO said:

“In broad terms the proposals contained within the draft bill are practical, positive, reasonable and balanced.”

What is there not to like?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that ACPO, like chief constables across the country, will make the best of the approach put to them, but many practitioners across the country have raised the concern that, with changing case law, it will take some time to be able to use the powers as effectively as the previous powers were used.

The Bill does nothing to make sure that community remedies and resolutions are focused on low-level crime. It does nothing to ensure that proper restorative justice, putting victims at the heart of the process, will be pursued or guaranteed. Instead, it risks creating loopholes to let offenders off because overstretched councils and police have not had the resources to sort the problem out.

[Robert Flello]

Does it not send a worrying message to the families of the, on average, two women who die every single week as a result of domestic homicide when 2,500 cases of domestic violence will be treated in this way? Does that not somehow suggest that their loved ones do not count? What sort of message does that send?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Community resolutions and the purpose of the restorative justice approach, which can be valuable in dealing with antisocial behaviour, are about getting offenders to say sorry to the victims and make it up to them. Yet that is exactly what we do not want in domestic violence cases. We do not want a police-sanctioned process of the perpetrator somehow apologising and making it up to the victim, who will then be expected to accept and go along with the apology, as if that makes it all right. Community resolutions should not be used for domestic violence cases. It is still a serious matter of concern that they continue to be used, despite ACPO’s guidance to the contrary. This is an area where the Home Office needs to step in and make sure that stronger guidance is sent out to chief constables and police forces across the country to make it very clear that community resolutions should not be used for domestic violence.

There are many cases in which ASBOs are not appropriate, but it must also be said that in some of the most serious examples of repeated abuse, they have made a significant difference. For example, an aggressive thug who had repeatedly intimidated residents and shopkeepers in a town centre, had repeatedly ignored warnings from the police and the courts, and had breached his ASBO was taken to the criminal courts and given a custodial sentence, but under the new system he would only be served with an injunction. The council would have to pursue expensive civil action to enforce the injunction, and there would be no criminal offence.

Nor will the community trigger solve the problem. The Home Secretary has made the grand promise that

“The trigger will give victims and communities the right to demand that agencies who had ignored a problem must take action.”

However, the trigger is not strong enough to help. For a start—as I pointed out to the Home Secretary earlier—although the Bill specifies that there must have been “at least three…complaints”, the number could be far higher. Police and crime commissioners could decide on five, 10 or 20. The Home Secretary said that it would be a matter for local discretion, but that local discretion already exists. If it were simply a matter for local discretion, she would allow people to choose to set up community triggers, and she would not be legislating. Either she thinks that this is a matter for local discretion and it is up to those people to decide, or she thinks that there should be minimum standards, but something as weak and wishy-washy as “at least three…complaints” is not really a minimum standard at all. This is a con. Even if the magic threshold is passed, what are residents entitled to? A review. How reassuring.

In the five areas that have piloted the community trigger, where there have been 44,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour, the trigger has been successfully activated 13 times—in response to not just less than 1% of complaints, not just less than 0.1%, but 0.03%. This measure will not have a big impact on the antisocial behaviour problems that persist in communities throughout the country.

When the Home Secretary made her speech on antisocial behaviour three years ago, she said:

“The solution to your community’s problems will not come from officials sitting in the Home Office working on the latest national action plan.”

That is certainly true. If the Bill is the nearest that the Home Office gets to its latest national action plan, it will make it harder, not easier, to solve community problems.

There are two respects in which the Bill has missed the opportunity to deal with some serious problems, and I urge Ministers to look at those again. The first is the problem of dangerous dogs, a subject on which a series of interventions were made on the Home Secretary’s speech. We support the measures that will extend the law to private property, but that is not enough. As the Home Secretary will know, the number of attacks has been rising, and there have been tragic fatal attacks. In the last two years, we have seen killings such as those of 18-month-old Zumer Ahmed and 71-year-old Gloria Knowles, who was mauled by dogs. Last week I met the family of 14-year-old Jade Anderson, who was tragically killed in an attack by dangerous dogs. I pay tribute to Jade’s family, who are campaigning for the strengthening of the law.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, a number of charities, and the families of victims killed in dangerous dog attacks want dog control notices to be introduced. I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said, but the problem is that experts have not been convinced by her argument that wider powers can be used, and that it will not take long to build up case law and make it easy for those powers to be applied. Of course dog control notices will not stop every attack, but they could make it easier for earlier preventive action to be taken. They are working in Scotland, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider the issue again during the Bill’s passage.

I hope that the Home Secretary will think again about firearms as well. As she will know, last year Susan McGoldrick, her sister Alison Turnbull and her niece Tanya were murdered by Susan’s partner, Michael Atherton, with a shotgun that he was licensed to own. Michael Atherton had a history of violence and abuse towards Susan McGoldrick, and he should never have been allowed to own a gun. Alison’s son, Bobby Tumbull, is campaigning for a change in the law.

The Home Office has rightly strengthened the guidance for gun applications, but it does not go far enough. It relies on interviews with family members who may still be living in fear of abuse. Why should anyone with a history of domestic violence be allowed to own a gun? Why should that guidance not be underpinned by legislation? We cannot legislate in Parliament to prevent every tragedy or every terrible crime, but we can seek to learn lessons when tragedies happen. We can listen to victims and their families, and we can work with them to make things safer in future.

We will not vote against the Bill’s Second Reading, but we think that it needs to be stronger. People want stronger action against antisocial behaviour, rather than the watering down of powers. They want more protection for victims, not just delayed reviews and loopholes for offenders if police resources are tight. They want more action against domestic violence, and more action against dangerous dogs. That requires more action from the Home Office, and more action from the Home Secretary. They need to do more to support communities, and they should do so in this Bill.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Home Affairs

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Lady cares to look at the figures, she will see that there has been a significant increase in the number of appeals by foreign national prisoners, which is delaying their deportation. That is exactly why this Government are bringing forward measures in the immigration Bill to deal with the appeals system, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will support them.

One of the most fundamental injustices of the present system is one that many Members will be aware of from the complaints of their constituents. It is the extent to which immigrants can call on publicly funded services without having made any contribution to the system that provides them. Our system is one of universal provision, and it will remain so under this Government, but it is also one that requires some contribution to be made in order for that provision to be accessed. That is the basic principle of justice that underpins the system, but it is a principle that has been flouted. When the Bill becomes law, it will be respected.

The Bill will ensure that temporary migrants and others will not be able to have free access to the NHS until they have made at least some contribution to the Exchequer. Furthermore, the Bill will strengthen legislation that penalises businesses that employ illegal immigrants. It is obviously unfair that those who are not entitled to be in Britain should be able to take jobs that ought to be filled by people who are so entitled. The Bill will strengthen our ability to enforce penalties on employers that have used illegal workers. It will also confirm that a migrant must have lawful immigration status of more than six months to qualify for a UK driving licence.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On the Home Secretary’s point about businesses that employ illegal migrants, will she explain why the number of businesses fined for so doing has dropped by 40% since the general election?

[Mrs May]

The rate of certain aspects of prosecutions taking place in relation to certain individuals has actually been higher under this Government than it was under the last Labour Government. That is one of the areas—[Interruption.] I have to say that I am not sure—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Once again in the Queen’s Speech we have heard grand claims, from the Home Secretary and indeed from the Prime Minister yesterday, about what their plans will do on immigration, antisocial behaviour, law and order, and justice. Sadly, however, the grand claims are simply not backed up by the reality of what they are doing.

The trouble is that we have been here before. We all remember how in this Government’s first Queen’s Speech the Home Secretary brought us the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. She said that it would give the police

“a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 708.]

Instead, she spent £100 million on shambolic elections and only one in eight people turned out to vote, which was hardly a ringing endorsement.

Let us remember, too, what the Home Secretary said about her counter-terror legislation. She said:

“Public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]

Instead, she brought terror suspects back to London and on Boxing day one of them ran off in a black cab and no one has seen him since. Let us remember how she promised that Abu Qatada would soon be on a plane, yet we are all still waiting. She promised there would be no cuts to front-line police, yet more than 5,000 officers have already gone from 999 response and neighbourhood teams. Time and again, the rhetoric does not match the reality.

The Home Secretary talked about the data communications Bill—that is, the missing data communications Bill. Here is what she said about that Bill less than six months ago:

“This law is needed and it is needed now. And I am determined to see it through.”

She also said:

“But Sun readers should know that I will not allow these vitally important laws to be delayed any longer in this Parliament.”

Instead, all that that the Queen’s Speech briefing says is that the Government are working with companies and

“It may involve legislation”—

“may”—it “may”; that is clearly the problem.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Home Secretary has carefully avoided saying what the Labour party policy is on the data communications Bill. Two days ago, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Labour Home Secretary, said that if Labour had won the last election it would have introduced such a measure. Is that her position? Can she enlighten us?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman should contain himself to squabbling within his coalition and struggling to get some answers. We have always said that action will be needed to ensure that the police can keep up with changing technology. However, the draft data communications Bill drawn up by the Home Secretary was far too wide; it gave the Home Secretary far too many powers and there were far too few safeguards for privacy. It was absolutely right that something had to be done, but that Bill was not the right approach. We must wait to see what approach the Home Secretary will now take, because Government Members are squabbling so much among themselves that the result is a shambolic approach to a serious issue. Time and again, that is what we see: there is strong rhetoric from the Home Secretary, and then the reality simply does not stack up.

It is the same when we come to the so-called “flagship” immigration Bill. We now discover that the Bill will not be published until the autumn, because the Government have obviously still not worked out what on earth to do about it. This is an area where we agree that action is needed. Yesterday, the Government told us that the Bill would have five central elements, but now it turns out that three already exist and will not require primary legislation, and two are merely proposals for consultation.

On jobseeker’s allowance, the Government are replicating the exact words in existing regulations. When the Health Secretary was asked about the NHS, all he could say was that he promised to examine the extent of the problem and do an audit. On private landlords, the Government cannot tell us how their policy will be enforced, because they do not know who the landlords are and they will not have a statutory register. Time and time again this Queen’s Speech has not set out the detailed proposals that we need. Instead of “flagship” Bills, all we have are proposals that seem to have been sketched out on the back of a fag packet—no wonder the Government wanted to get rid of the cigarette packaging legislation.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has made an attempt at two jokes during her speech, which is probably two more than we normally have. I have a simple question for her: does she agree that net migration was too high under the previous Labour Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have already said that the pace of migration was too fast and that the level should come down; we have supported measures in that regard. However, although the Home Secretary has made grand claims about net migration and the Immigration Minister is attempting to do the same, they will recognise that two thirds of their drop in net migration is a result of an increase in British citizens leaving the country and fewer British citizens returning home.

Let me quote the numbers to the Home Secretary; she is on the edge of her seat, itching to intervene. In fact, the drop in net migration has been 72,000. Of those, 27,000 more Brits are leaving the country and 20,000 fewer Brits are coming home. Is she proud of a set of policies that have driven British people out of the country? I will give way to her if she wants to respond to that point.

[Mrs May]

On that statistical point, I suggest the right hon. Lady looks at what the Office for National Statistics said, which was that it was not the emigration of British people that led to the drop in net migration. We have reduced net migration by a third. I think she said that she accepted that net migration was too high under the Labour Government. Will she now apologise for that?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is targeting net migration, which she knows is affected by British people leaving the country—by people leaving as well as people arriving. I state the figures again: a 72,000 drop, 27,000 more Brits leaving the country and 20,000 fewer coming home. People obviously do not want to come back to Britain under her Government. That is the problem that she has to face.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that it is utterly astonishing that she is not apologising to the British people for creating such an enormous amount of heartache and grief for them? Rather than encouraging my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in her attempts to put right the failings of the right hon. Lady’s Government, she is standing there and criticising. Should she not be apologising?

[Yvette Cooper]

Nice try from the hon. Lady, but the facts show that there is a series of problems in this Government’s measures on immigration. I agree that we should have had transitional controls on migration from eastern Europe. There are things that the Labour Government should have done but which did not happen. They should have happened.

We should have people working together. There are many areas on which we agree with the Government and will support the measures that they are taking, but look at what has happened, particularly on illegal immigration. The number of people refused entry dropped by 50%. The number of people absconding through Heathrow passport control trebled. The number caught afterwards halved. The backlog in finding failed asylum seekers has gone up. The number of illegal immigrants deported has gone down. This is not a catalogue of success on immigration from the right hon. Lady’s Government.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, then I want to make some progress.

[Nick de Bois]

The shadow Minister was bandying around figures about net migration and people leaving this country. She might do well to remember that in the 10 years of her Government, 2 million people aged 25 to 44—the most economically active—left this country, and she has the cheek to lecture us about people not wanting to come back.

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, people are travelling and trading more than ever. That is why immigration is an important issue for our future and why we must get the policies right. A policy that targets net migration means that the Government can claim to have made huge progress on the things that the British people care about when they are failing to tackle exploitation in the labour market and failing to tackle illegal immigration, which is not even measured in the net migration statistics. Illegal immigration can go on getting worse and worse, yet the Immigration Minister can make more and more claims about his target, and the result is that he is not listening to the real issues that people are concerned about, particularly on illegal immigration.

There are serious issues on immigration, crime and justice that should be addressed in this Queen’s Speech and we support action in all these areas. I shall cover each of them. We want to support many of the Government’s measures, although we will scrutinise the detail. We support action to stop the terrible crime of forced marriage and the right hon. Lady will agree that it is important to get the legislation right. We support action on dangerous dogs, though we will wait to see whether it goes far enough and to look at the detail of her proposals.

We welcome action on fire arms, but what is the Home Secretary doing to stop people with a history of domestic violence owning a gun? We need an answer for Bobby Turnbull, whose mother, aunt and sister were tragically killed by Michael Atherton, who was granted a gun licence despite his history of abuse. We agree, too, with more support and rehabilitation for offenders, but where is the evidence that these untested massive private contracts will work? When the Justice Secretary tried it for the Work programme, it proved worse than doing nothing at all, and when the Home Secretary tried it for the Olympics, she ended up calling in the troops.

Time and again the promises do not match the practice. The right hon. Lady promises action on antisocial behaviour, yet she is weakening powers, not strengthening them. There will be no criminal sanction if antisocial behaviour measures are repeatedly breached. She promises that the community trigger will make a difference in persistent cases, yet in the pilots it was hardly ever used. Out of 23,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour in Manchester, the trigger was implemented three times. In Richmond it was not used at all.

Yet still there is nothing to deal with the serious consequences for justice of the police cuts and the policies that the Government have pursued. For nearly 10 years, the proportion of crimes brought to justice went up. In 2002, 18% of crimes were solved, and that rose to more than 30% by the 2010 election. Crime fell, but a higher proportion of crimes were solved. Not any more. We all want crime to keep falling, but we need support and justice for victims too. The proportion of crimes brought to justice has fallen since the election. There are 15,000 fewer police officers, 200,000 fewer arrests and 30,000 fewer crimes solved, and some of the most serious crimes of all have not been followed up or offenders have been let off.

The Queen’s Speech proposes to expand community resolutions for things such as antisocial behaviour, and we support more action in the community to resolve low-level crimes or antisocial behaviour—people apologising to victims and making reparations. But it must not become a short cut for dealing with serious and violent crime because there are not enough police to do the job, and that is what is happening on the Home Secretary’s watch. The number of serious and violent offenders let off after they said sorry has gone up massively since the cuts started—up from 13,000 to 33,000 in just three years. Yet it goes against all the guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO says that it should not be used at all for domestic violence because it

“represents serious risk to the victims of such offences and is often subject to a complex and protracted investigation”.

That is too right. We know the pattern in many domestic violence cases: the offender apologises and says he will never do it again and that he really, really loves her, until the next time, when he hits her all over again. The criminal justice system must not sanction that. Yet that is exactly what happened 2,700 times last year—a fivefold increase since before the election and before the cuts started; a fivefold increase in the number of cases where a domestic violence offender was let off after they said sorry.

What was the response from Ministers? The Home Office has refused to issue new guidance, to set safeguards, to raise the matter with ACPO, and to rethink police cuts. Instead it says that it is a

“matter for Chief Constables. Through crime maps and police and crime commissioners, the public now have the means to hold them to account.”

That is reassuring. The police are overstretched, violent offenders are getting off, but at least we can Google it, and at least people get a vote in three years’ time. That is not an acceptable response to a serious problem.

On immigration, the grand claims do not match the reality either. We support action in many of the areas that the Government have talked about and we will scrutinise the legislation when it finally comes forward. Concerns about immigration are genuine and Parliament should respond. The pace of immigration has been too fast and we support measures to bring immigration down, particularly from low-skilled migration. But I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that Britain has benefited from people coming to our shores through the generations and contributing to this country. From our great scientists to the founders of our most successful businesses, from our great artists to our Olympic gold medallists, people who have worked hard for this country have boosted our society, our culture and our economy too.

As people travel and trade more than ever in future, in global markets, immigration will be important to Britain’s future as well. It is because immigration is important that it needs to be controlled and managed so that it is fair for all. We supported the proposals on article 8 when they were passed through Parliament last year. Article 8 is a qualified right and it is reasonable for Parliament to say how that should be balanced, especially when crimes have been committed, and we will work further with the Home Secretary in this area. But she should not pretend that the Government’s failure to deport foreign criminals is all because of the Human Rights Act. In fact, the number of foreign prisoners deported has fallen by 800 a year since the election, and she has herself admitted that only a minority of cases involve successful appeals under article 8. Far more often the problem is lost paperwork and administrative incompetence, problems that have been getting worse not better on her watch.

Nor has the Home Secretary set out proper plans to deal with exploitation in the labour market and illegal immigration. I hope that she will now introduce the powers that we put forward for borders enforcement staff in the Bill last year. I also hope that there will be action to close the loopholes on student visitor visas, and further action to deal with the fewer illegal migrants deported, more absconding at the border and fewer cases of illegal migrants reported to the Home Office simply not being followed up.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I strongly agree with what my right hon. Friend is saying, but does she not accept that we must argue the case for a substantial increase in staffing to deal with all those matters?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

It is significant that the Home Office has cut around 5,000 staff from the UK Border Agency, and we have seen the consequences, for example in the growing delays for business people, who need visas rapidly, and longer delays and problems with appeals.

Crucially, we also need action to deal with the exploitation of migrant workers to undercut local staff. Where is the action to enforce the minimum wage? Where are the measures to extend gangmasters licensing? Where are the measures to stop agencies recruiting only from abroad? Where are the measures to stop employers using overcrowded housing to get around the minimum wage? Higher fines for businesses employing illegal labour are right, but they are no use if enforcement has dropped by more than 800 companies since the general election.

Let us also be clear that UK Independence party policies would make the situation worse. It wants to end statutory paid holidays, redundancy pay and maternity leave. Getting rid of those entitlements would be deeply unfair. Also, to do so would make it easier, not harder, for employers to exploit migrant workers and undercut local terms and conditions. The truth is that neither the Tories nor UKIP are willing to address the real problem of exploitation and the practical issues that trouble people because they are simply in a race to the bottom in the labour market and in the economy. If they really are concerned about deporting foreign criminals, why are they all determined to opt out of the European arrest warrant, just because it has the word Europe in the title, and even though it was responsible for the swift deportation of 900 suspected foreign criminals last year for trial back home? The reality is that those policies are not driven by facts, justice or a serious concern to get immigration policy right.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

On the question of deporting foreign-born criminals to serve the balance of their sentence in their home countries, does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that most of the prisoner swap agreements we have with non-EU countries need the prisoner’s permission, it is difficult to see how the Government will achieve anything with that stated policy?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are still waiting to see the detail of the Government’s policy, because in so many of these areas we get strong rhetoric but the reality does not add up to it, and often it does not even emerge.

The Home Secretary might think that she is fending off the threat from UKIP, but actually she is doing the opposite. The more she ramps up the rhetoric and widens the gap between it and reality, the more she increases public concern and the more sceptical people become. This is no time for an arms race on immigration rhetoric. Instead, we need fair and sensible policies that will make things better, not worse.

Let me raise one final immigration issue with the Home Secretary. We agree with the sentiment in the Queen’s Speech that those who come here should contribute, but what about those who have already contributed to this country by risking their lives and those of their families for our troops and our nation, and many of those are still doing so? What about the Afghan interpreters who have supported our troops and face threats from the Taliban as our troops pull out? When we left Iraq, we recognised the debt we owed those interpreters. The Americans, the Australians and the New Zealanders are all recognising their obligations to the interpreters. Surely she should show a similar sense of honour and add to the Queen’s Speech a settlement scheme for the Afghan interpreters, to whom we and our troops owe so much? We will support her if she does.

This is a Queen’s Speech that fails to provide the answers on law and order. It fails to provide the answers we need on immigration. It fails to provide help for family living standards. It fails to provide the boost our flatlining economy so badly needs. Once all the pomp and ceremony has passed, the reality of the Queen’s Speech is looking pretty thin. The Home Secretary, like the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, talks tough but does not deliver. As the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) said, she

“talks the talk but does not walk the walk.”

On the Opposition side, we could not agree more.